The topic of fellowship is included in our joy as Christians – having fellowship with God now, and having that fellowship consummated in eternity. For this reason, all that surrounds the topic, both the positive and the negative, is vital. Consideration of our fellowship with God, and fellowship with those of “like precious faith” (2 Peter 1:1) is a source of great encouragement. Therefore, when this fellowship is lost, or is threatened, there is a great need to address the problem in whatever way the scripture requires. This idea is expressed by Jude in his epistle – “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It is beneficial and enjoyable to discuss our fellowship with God, but if that fellowship is in harm’s way we must protect it. Also, if that fellowship is already lost in another, we must work toward restoration.

Church discipline is a topic often neglected for the negative feelings it brings, and the uncomfortable situations to which it often tends. However, it is prudent to always keep in mind that the problem is not church discipline; the problem is sin. Church discipline is God’s wisdom at work against sin in the church. It is God’s way of molding us into righteous servants of His. “Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11).

Any discussion of church discipline should be prefaced with the assertion that it is intended for good. It is naïve to suggest that any congregation can maintain or gain strength without church discipline. It is constantly needed. Webster defines discipline as, “training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character” (“Discipline.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d.). The Greek word, paideia, translated “chastening,” carries with it the same idea – “tutorage, i.e. education or training; by implication, disciplinary correction” (Strong). It is worthy to note that the withdrawal from those who are disorderly (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6) is not the first step in discipline. The doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness received from the inspired scripture is disciplinary (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Anytime God’s word is taught, discipline is given and received.

Further stages of discipline are reached when individuals fail to submit to the initial discipline of inspired teaching. This is the restoration of the erring. “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20). However, restoring one in a spirit of gentleness who has been overtaken in any trespass (cf. Galatians 6:1) is not the same as bidding one who does not bring the doctrine of Christ “God speed” (2 John 10, KJV). The effort is to “[turn] a sinner from the error of his way,” not to maintain a relationship despite the sin in which he continues. Any effort taken to restore an erring brother must not be misconstrued as continued fellowship with sin and the sinner.  It is not the toleration of sin, rather, it is the expression of intolerance toward sin.

When efforts at restoration fail due to the obstinacy of the sinner, further efforts are to be taken. This process can be observed in Jesus’ discussion of restoring an erring brother in Matthew 18:15-20. To gain back a brother who had sinned against another, several steps were taken. First, the sinner was approached concerning his sin by the one he sinned against (v. 15). If that failed, two or three witnesses accompanied the one seeking to restore the sinner (v. 16). Then, the conflict was brought before the church (v. 17a). Lastly, upon the failure of the first three attempts at restoration, the sinner was withdrawn from (v. 17b). At no point during the process was the sin tolerated. Each effort was a disciplinary action to turn the sinner away from sin, thus, to restore his soul. This includes the last step which Paul described elsewhere as “deliver[ing] such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:5).

Discipline is not enjoyable, but it is necessary. Willful ignorance, and indifference toward sin in the church is unacceptable. Receiving those whom God has not received is tantamount to sharing with them in their evil deeds (cf. 2 John 9-11). Love is not shown through tolerating sin to spare the sinner from discomfort, but in exposing their sin and calling them to repentance (cf. James 5:19-20; Acts 8:18-24). “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11).

Autonomy

“Autonomy” comes from the Greek word “autonomia.” “Autonomia” combines “autos” (self), and “nomos” (law). Literally, “autonomy” means self-law. The design of the local church is autonomous, or self-governing. Each congregation has its own elders appointed by God, and is governed by them. “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you” (1 Peter 5:2). See also Acts 14:23; 20:28. However, it is imperative to understand that each congregation in its autonomy is still subject to the Chief Shepherd – Jesus (cf. 1 Peter 5:4). Church autonomy is not a design for progressivism, but for adherence to the truth. It does not grant liberty for each congregation to do as it pleases. Rather, it ensures that any congregation’s departure from the truth does not affect any other congregation whose desire is still to submit to God. Each congregation has its own lampstand, but there is one standard which must be followed in order to keep it in its place.

There are some who operate under the label of “church autonomy” to receive those who have been marked and disciplined by other congregations. This is wrong. Church autonomy does not exempt any congregation from adherence to any facet of Christ’s doctrine, fellowship included. The apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also much beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words” (2 Timothy 4:14-15). Such was not simply a difference of opinion between Paul and Alexander, but a difference concerning the truth. Alexander had strayed from the truth, and was noted by Paul in his letter to Timothy. For Timothy, and the church where he resided, to ignore Paul’s words and receive Alexander would be to rebel against God. For Alexander was not received by God. The same can be said concerning Hymenaeus, and Philetus (cf. 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17). Church autonomy does not sanction the reception of those who are in rebellion against God. Furthermore, the warning concerning those who have strayed from the truth does not violate autonomy. Paul wrote the church in Corinth concerning one of their own who had departed from the truth (cf. 1 Corinthians 5). They continued fellowship with him unlawfully, as he was impenitent concerning his sexual immorality. The standard for receiving anyone remains the same from congregation to congregation – has God received this person (cf. 1 John 1:3)?

Family

When discussing or practicing church discipline, often there are questions raised regarding familial relationships. How are family members to conduct themselves in situations where a relative has been withdrawn from, and is unfaithful to the Lord? Are family members of the one who has been disciplined exempt from involvement in the disciplinary actions?

Some allow their biological relationship to have precedence rather than their spiritual relationship. However, even family members have the obligation to do that which is necessary to submit to God in this category of church discipline, and to do that which is necessary for the spiritual well-being of the fallen. There are responsibilities God holds us to as members of a family (cf. Ephesians 5:22-6:4; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5; 1 Timothy 5:8; etc.). These must not be compromised in the name of church discipline. However, there must never be the sense of toleration, or indifference toward sin. “Not even to eat with such a person” (1 Corinthians 5:11), and “receiv[ing] him into your house nor greet[ing] him” (2 John 10) both consider any action which would imply a willful ignorance of, acceptance of, or indifference toward sin. In the case of a parent’s child who has been disciplined due to their spiritual rebellion, God would not have that parent neglect their duties toward their child. However, God does not permit that parent to act in any way that would undermine the deliverance of the impenitent one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that their spirit might be saved (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:5). The same can be said for any other familial relationship. One must love the Lord more than any other (cf. Matthew 10:34-39), and one must love another’s soul more than any other thing (cf. James 5:19-20).

It is never easy when a family member is being disciplined spiritually. Nothing hurts more than to have a spouse, child, sibling, or any other family member turn away from the Lord, and place their soul in jeopardy. It is a tragedy when such happens. In such cases, the love for their soul must surpass the love for social interaction. “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 John 3:16). It may be that the life we must lay down for the sake of their spiritual well-being is the culmination of the simple, yet great pleasures of family relationships. If such in God’s wisdom provides for their return to the Lord, we should be willing to make that sacrifice (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8).